Brotherly Wisdom

2005-07-05T00:35:00Z

My brother had interesting points when I was visiting. One was the idea that feminism has allowed women to get careers and this has given rise to two income families. The cost of living adjusts to this; in particular the price of housing and land has risen because the price of land is just high enough to be barely affordable. The net result is that it now costs about twice as much to have the same standard of living.

Today I read the first 100 pages of Shakedown by Angus Reid. I’ve contemplated the idea that less work is needed for the same productivity, for instance processing wheat takes 10% of the labour required 100 years ago. This is bad because the consumers won’t have the money to buy the goods being produced. I figured that this will eventually “adjust”, possibly is some horrible way. But Angus Reid suggested that fewer people are required for both producers and consumers. This is something I hadn’t considered. The economy may not need all of us. It can produce and consume with just a portion of the population. If this is the case, the economy doesn’t need to “adjust”. Where does this leave the unnecessary people?